Editorial: Wishing upon Starr to bow out of impeachment

It used to be said that comedian Johnny Carson was the "master of impeccable timing."

On the flip side, it must be said that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is the master of the unparalleled blunder.

Starr bolted back onto center stage this week, according to an article in the New York Times, when his associates stepped all over the Senate's impeachment trial of President Clinton. Starr, say these associates, believes he has the constitutional authority to indict the president on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. He believes, apparently, that he can lower the boom on Clinton before the president leaves office.

This notion is under serious debate. Scholars say that, at best, the Constitution is murky on this subject. Some say the Constitution precludes any criminal action against the president until after he leaves office. Others dispute that language and say that absent a clear prohibition against indicting a sitting president, a prosecutor can plow straight ahead.

There's another problem, though. The Senate is getting ready to vote soon on whether to throw Bill Clinton out of office. The impeachment clause of the Constitution says removal is the proper punishment for a president found guilty of certain crimes. Thus, the timing of this disclosure by Starr's associates must be called into question.

Why, one must wonder, would Starr's feelings about indicting the president come out now, as the Senate is nearing the end of this grueling constitutional ordeal?

It would behoove Starr to follow a simple dictum: Keep your mouth shut, tell those on your legal team to keep their mouths shut and let the Senate complete this trial.

As for whether Starr has the authority to indict Clinton, we'd rather he wait until after the president leaves office.

Bill Clinton's presidency has taken enough of a battering, thanks mainly to Clinton's own conduct - but also to the relentlessness of his pursuer.